We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Civil Service Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rally for the Republic
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 3721
Description[?]:
| So ordered as to make the national government as effective and efficient as possible. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Appointments and requirements for government employees.
Old value:: Government employees are selected and appointed in a political way.
Current: All government employees have to promise political independence.
Proposed: All government employees have to promise political independence.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Discrimination in the military on grounds of race/religion.
Old value:: Candidates must be of a certain race/religion to have any place in the military.
Current: Any adult citizen can serve in the military, discrimination for racial or religious reasons is prohibited.
Proposed: Any adult citizen can serve in the military, discrimination for racial or religious reasons is prohibited.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:50:20, August 20, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We wish to begin the debate by pointing out that the current value in Article 2 is in place due to Lodamese Nationalism. Therefore, it is not any different from the proposed value. Those wishing to serve in the military must still be citizens, and citizens must follow Nationalism. That said, it is a worthy endeavour. It removes the possibility of confusing citizens into thinking that we have a discriminatory policy in place. We do not. The military allows all citizens to serve. For Article 1, we must ask for a background. We are unsure about the current status of government jobs. Is there a reason we appoint in a political way? Do certain positions depend on this value? Because if not, then we are in favour of the change. ~ Lillian Barker SLP's Consultant for Internal Affairs |
| Date | 06:03:46, August 20, 2014 CET | From |  Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We like to have our laws supporting each other. When the current law, regarding discrimination in the military on religious grounds, was implemented, it was stated that it was only for Lodamese Nationalism. We wish to keep the law, to prevent contradictions and confusion. The military, as well as the entire state, does discriminate. We favour members of Lodamese Nationalism over anyone else in the world. For the sake of political stability, we are fine with the current law on appointments and requirements for government employees. -- George Huddleson, GNRG Spokesman on Justice |
| Date | 08:00:45, August 20, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Of course we wish our citizens to put Lodamun before any other country. Any good follower of Lodamese Nationalism would do so. A Lodamese citizen is synonymous with a follower of Lodamese Nationalism. The current proposal may as well say: "Any adult *follower of Lodamese nationalism* can serve in the military". Ergo, it is merely redundant law-making. It does not discriminate in a way that counts, for it is not our citizens facing discrimination. Yet, that is not what concerns us. Article 1 concerns us. Especially if the only information given to us about the current law is that it is in place for "political stability". That statement reeks of entrenchment. We do not support any law, on the books or otherwise, that will erode at our Great Democratic Republic. ~ Lillian Barker SLP's Consultant for Internal Affairs |
| Date | 13:52:43, August 20, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr Speaker We would like to express that our party will be forming policies in opposition to the restrictive nationalism expressed. We would like to see a Lodamun concerned about economic growth. Stability and continued review of policies that we think have not worked. We would like to see a pushing forward of a more secular, constant progressive modern and democratic state. Concerning article1 we think at this point in time political affiliation is what drives the past administrations some of our members may still want to see this continue. Article 2 we believe a reform of a more modern military must come eventually. Zach Valentinn D.A Leader and National Spokesperson |
| Date | 04:37:18, August 21, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Lodamun's economy has been in the top 5 for centuries, with the exception of the time that Lodamun had the Aldermann administration where the GNRG was in opposition. The Alderman administration was, fortunately, kicked out of power and the economy was fixed. We don't understand the DA's stance on article 2. As the SLP points out, the other laws that we have already reinforce the "discrimination" that Article 2 talks about. Even if this bill is pased, the current effects of Article 2 will still exist. Nothing will really change. What is " a more modern military" and how does this really change anything? -- George Huddleson, GNRG Spokesman on Justice |
| Date | 13:05:50, August 21, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, What we think the DA is trying to say is that there is a potential to improve the mental well being of those who serve in our military through changing the legislation. To destroy some of the stressors that afflict those that serve. The word modern doesn't really give us this on it's own though, context is important. Maybe the DA would like to expand? ~ Lillian Barker SLP's Consultant for Internal Affairs OOC, since someone brought it up, how exactly does Particracy economy work? I know we have the National Budget page but what influences those numbers? I assume it's not arbitrary. |
| Date | 14:42:49, August 21, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The DA is still not understanding that the change in that law won't really change anything, as the SLP pointed out earlier. -- George Huddleson, GNRG Spokesman on Justice OOC: setting tax rates and government spending perfectly |
| Date | 02:25:05, August 22, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr Speaker. We believe there might be other laws the rally for Republic could add to this bill. Regarding the points GNRG speaking of. Phillipa Corazona D.A Representative on Justice |
| Date | 02:27:59, August 22, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Civil Service Reform |
| Message | Mr Speaker. We hope the RR will not back down to opposition on points but our leader has instructed me to inform that we are slightly hesitant to support this bill. Reason being that we believe a more inclusive bill could possibly be presented. Phillipa Corazona D.A Representative on Justice |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 298 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 301 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Men who have greatness in them don't go in for politics." - Albert Camus |